Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02721
Original file (BC 2010 02721.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02721 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to honorable. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was unfairly discharged from the Air Force. He was charged 
with fraud; however, the charges were dropped and he still 
received an UOTHC discharge. He was charged with fraud for 
claiming he was married, which he never did. Once he realized the 
clerk had entered his status as married, he went to rectify the 
error and was subsequently charged with fraud. He notified the 
accounting office in an attempt to correct a clerical error 
because he had no intention of defrauding the government. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 21 September 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force. 

 

On 14 December 1989, the applicant was charged with two 
specifications of intent to deceive, by signing AF Form 594, Authorization to Start, Stop or Change Basic Allowance for 
Quarters, Rent Plus and/or Variable Housing Allowance, stating he 
was married. He also signed the AF Form 987, Recertification of 
Basic Allowance for Quarters Variable/Rent Plus Housing 
Allowance, stating he had a dependent, which was false, both in 
violation of Art 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ). 

 

On 24 January 1990, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of 

trial by court-martial. 

 

On 22 February 1990, the judge advocate’s office reviewed the 
applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-
martial, determined it was legally sufficient, and recommended an 
UOTHC discharge certificate be furnished. 


On 22 February 1990, the General Court-Martial Convening 
Authority approved the applicant's request for discharge in lieu 
of trial by court-martial with an UOTHC. 

 

On 2 March 1990, the applicant was discharged in the grade of 
technical sergeant with an UOTHC discharge. He served 12 years, 
5 months and 12 days. 

 

On 8 August 1991, the applicant submitted an application to the 
Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting a change in 
his discharge. The AFDRB concluded that a change in the discharge 
was not warranted. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report, 
which is at Exhibit C. 

 

On 14 December 2010, a request for information pertaining to his 
post-service activities and a copy of the FBI report were 
forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit 
D). 

 

The applicant responded stating that prior to his discharge, his 
military performance was exemplary. He worked on his college 
education and progressed through the ranks at a fairly rapid 
pace, making technical sergeant within eight years and had a line 
number for master sergeant. He earned the Air Force Commendation 
Medal, the Air Force Good Conduct Medal, the Air Force Longevity 
Service Ribbon, the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award and the USAF 
Basic Military Training and Honor Graduate Ribbon. After 
leaving the military, he was employed as a computer network 
engineer and traveled the United States and other countries. 

 

In 2000, he volunteered in a school district as a designer and 
maintainer for the sports website. He also attended Alcoholics 
Anonymous (AA) and served as a sponsor for AA. Lastly, he 
volunteered to assist the Girl Scouts of America. 

 

In 2001, he had to stop working due to a chronic illnesses, Post 
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depression. He has been 
granted a 70 percent disability rating from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs and Social Security Disability. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 


 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. 
We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, 
we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend 
granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which 
to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; that the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 
the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this 
application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-02721 in Executive Session on 3 February 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 
The following documentary pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2010-02721 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation, dated 13 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Dec 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated. 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01472

    Original file (BC-2008-01472.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01472 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 20 Dec 88, the applicant appealed to the AFDRB to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable. The AFDRB considered the evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-00586

    Original file (BC-2012-00586.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00586 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00689

    Original file (BC-2010-00689.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 Aug 84, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge, concluding the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and he was provided full administrative due process. In response, the applicant provides a statement describing his activities since his discharge as well as two letters in support of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03317

    Original file (BC-2005-03317.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 Jan 83, applicant’s squadron commander recommended his request for discharge be approved and recommended a general discharge. On 8 May 83, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his under other than honorable discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 22 Oct 85, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00330

    Original file (BC-2012-00330.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00330 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of service be changed from general, under honorable conditions (UHC) to honorable. On 7 Aug 84, the applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable. In our view, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01499

    Original file (BC-2010-01499.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 March 1977, after consulting with counsel, the applicant filed her request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Air Force Manual 39-12, Chapter 2, Section F. She indicated that if her request for discharge was approved, she understood it may result in her receiving a UOTHC discharge. On 23 March 1978 and 8 December 1980, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge. Furthermore,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04716

    Original file (BC 2013 04716.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The wing commander reviewed the case and recommended the 21 AF/CC approve the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and ordered that he be discharged with an UOTHC discharge. According to AFHQ Form 0-2077, Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing Record dated 6 Jun 13, the applicant was offered, but declined, a personal appearance before the board and requested that the review be completed based on the available service record. The AFDRB noted that if...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01739

    Original file (BC-2006-01739.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He receive a Presidential pardon removing his court-martial conviction and bad conduct discharge (BCD) from his record. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. As such, applicant's request for a Presidential pardon is not possible since such action is not within the purview of this Board's authority.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00891

    Original file (BC-2011-00891.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 November 1974, the applicant received an LOR for failure to report to his appointed place of duty on 21 October 1974. On 31 December 1974, his commander recommended the applicant’s request be approved. On 20 October 1976, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded the applicant’s discharge characterization to general (under honorable conditions) under the reason of current policy and clemency.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02304

    Original file (BC-2010-02304.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 Nov 79, the applicant, with counsel, appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB); however, the AFDRB considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge. In considering the applicant’s overall record of service, the FBI Report of Investigation, and including the letters of support and accomplishments since his discharge, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted. ...